Williams v. State.concurrence
2017 Ark. 151
| Ark. | 2017Background
- Marcel Wayne Williams was sentenced to death; this opinion is a concurring opinion by Justice Hart addressing procedural defects in the appellate record.
- Supreme Court Rule 4-3(i) required that all adverse rulings and parts of the record needed to review prejudicial error in death-penalty cases be included in the record on appeal.
- The mitigating-circumstances portion of the jury verdict form was not included in the appellate transcript or briefs, preventing meaningful review under the rule.
- When the verdict form was later placed before the court, it was defective because it was not signed by the jury foreman, leaving ambiguity whether the jury properly considered and weighed mitigation.
- The concurrence argues that these defects demonstrate a breakdown in the appellate process that should warrant recalling the mandate, but notes the court applied harmless-error precedent and declined to recall the mandate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appellate record complied with Rule 4-3(i) so the court could review prejudicial error | Williams: Record lacked the mitigating-circumstances verdict form, so review was impossible | State: Court proceeded and found no reversible error (harmless-error approach) | Court found the record defective but applied harmless-error precedent and did not recall the mandate |
| Whether a defective verdict form (not signed by foreman) undermines confidence that mitigation was considered | Williams: Unsigned/defective form means cannot conclude jury properly reviewed and weighed mitigation | State: Any defects are harmless and do not require recalling the mandate | Concurrence: Defect is significant and suggests breakdown; majority nonetheless treats error as harmless |
| Whether recalling the mandate is appropriate when verdict-form defects exist | Williams: Past precedent supported recalling mandate for similar defects | State: Later controlling precedent (Nooner) favors harmless-error analysis, limiting recalls | Court declined to recall mandate based on controlling harmless-error decisions |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. State, 338 Ark. 97, 991 S.W.2d 565 (1999) (affirmed sufficiency of aggravating findings and that they outweighed mitigation in earlier appeal)
- Nooner v. State, 2014 Ark. 296, 438 S.W.3d 233 (2014) (recognized harmless-error approach and limited recalls for verdict-form defects)